Your biggest problem may be to find the COM port that your TBolt is
connected to.
You may have to configure the port to the baud rate etc of the Tbolt
(or visa versa)
A Tbolt will work OK with a USB-to-Serial port converter but you have
to find the port
allocation and baud rate.
I once spent
On Sep 19, 2010, at 4:38 PM, Bob Camp wrote:
> Lady Heather is a good program to dig into a TBolt with. It's free...
It also plots oscillator and PPS error (the oscillator error plot may be off by
default). If the error plots look good and both signals can be seen at the BNC
outputs with an osc
Hi
The unit you get may be set up for some strange location. It's possible you
will need to reset it to factory defaults before it will do it's thing.
Lady Heather is a good program to dig into a TBolt with. It's free...
Bob
On Sep 19, 2010, at 6:47 PM, russell wrote:
> This is my first att
Russell,
Load TBoltMon on your computer, connect the TBolt to the Serial Port,
connect the antenna, connect the power supply (make sure of the correct
connections), fire up your computer, then turn on the TBolt, double click
the TBoltMon icon, select the appropriate port, and just watch what happe
This is my first attempt at having a time reference for my home lab. I have
recently ordered a pulled / untested Tbolt (board in box wo/ power supply) from
ebay. It has a 5 day right to return if non functional. While waiting to
receive the unit, I have been getting things ready here (antenn
Frank -
DBMs are extremely cheap in the frequency range you are talking about. The
rest, well, you just have to try. I think you are way overcomplicating this.
I am still not sure why you feel you need a xtal filter. It is not going to
help with the 100 Hz away stuff. Using simple BJTs common base
Hi Mike,
On 9/19/10, Mike Feher wrote:
> Frank -
>
> Great idea, so obvious I did not think of it. If you mix the 20 and 22 you
> will only get 3 dB degradation or still very close to the -131 dBc/Hz
> relative to the 10811A. As I mentioned before the architecture is relevant.
> I have found that
Hi
I do believe you will find that a 3rd overtone will do quite a bit better at
100Hz offset than a fundamental.
Bob
On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:56 PM, jimlux wrote:
> Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> On 09/19/2010 08:23 PM, francesco messineo wrote:
>>> On 9/19/10, jimlux wrote:
francesco messineo
Frank -
Great idea, so obvious I did not think of it. If you mix the 20 and 22 you
will only get 3 dB degradation or still very close to the -131 dBc/Hz
relative to the 10811A. As I mentioned before the architecture is relevant.
I have found that mixing does not cause any noticeable degradation, a
Hi Mike,
On 9/19/10, Mike Feher wrote:
> Well, if one just looks at the spec of the 10811A for relative performance,
> it is -140 dBc/Hz at 100 Hz offset at 10 MHz. Realistically, probably a
> little better. From that it would be real easy to generate the frequencies
> Frank is looking for, obvio
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 09/19/2010 08:23 PM, francesco messineo wrote:
On 9/19/10, jimlux wrote:
francesco messineo wrote:
Hi Mike,
as I said, current plans are for a few frequencies in the 20-50 MHz
range. The current project needs 20, 22 and 42 MHz oscillators.
But you're multiplyin
francesco messineo wrote:
On 9/19/10, jimlux wrote:
francesco messineo wrote:
It's hard to explain why to ones not familiar with weak signal
operation between broadcasting signals, but really the noise floor
raise a lot when you have some 5 or 6 broadcasts signals in 500 KHz of
band (all with
Nigel,
Thanks very much! I'm not able to download it from here at work (the IT
Police policies block so much the internet isn't fun any more!), but
will as soon as I'm home.
I have the receiver going quite well, and it certainly looks impressive
with its Nixie display. It's no great performer by m
On 09/19/2010 08:23 PM, francesco messineo wrote:
On 9/19/10, jimlux wrote:
francesco messineo wrote:
Hi Mike,
as I said, current plans are for a few frequencies in the 20-50 MHz
range. The current project needs 20, 22 and 42 MHz oscillators.
But you're multiplying that up, it will be 20l
Well, if one just looks at the spec of the 10811A for relative performance,
it is -140 dBc/Hz at 100 Hz offset at 10 MHz. Realistically, probably a
little better. From that it would be real easy to generate the frequencies
Frank is looking for, obviously 20 would be easy but would be only -134
dBc/
On 9/19/10, jimlux wrote:
> francesco messineo wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> as I said, current plans are for a few frequencies in the 20-50 MHz
>> range. The current project needs 20, 22 and 42 MHz oscillators.
>>
>
>
> But you're multiplying that up, it will be 20log(N) worse...
no, I'm using these
On 9/19/10, jimlux wrote:
> francesco messineo wrote:
>
It's hard to explain why to ones not familiar with weak signal
operation between broadcasting signals, but really the noise floor
raise a lot when you have some 5 or 6 broadcasts signals in 500 KHz of
band (all with power
Hi
Maybe narrow band stuff like low data rate PSK
Bob
On Sep 19, 2010, at 1:59 PM, jimlux wrote:
> francesco messineo wrote:
>
It's hard to explain why to ones not familiar with weak signal
operation between broadcasting signals, but really the noise floor
raise a lot when you
francesco messineo wrote:
Hi Mike,
as I said, current plans are for a few frequencies in the 20-50 MHz
range. The current project needs 20, 22 and 42 MHz oscillators.
But you're multiplying that up, it will be 20log(N) worse...
___
time-nuts maili
francesco messineo wrote:
It's hard to explain why to ones not familiar with weak signal
operation between broadcasting signals, but really the noise floor
raise a lot when you have some 5 or 6 broadcasts signals in 500 KHz of
band (all with power levels of at least 10 dB more than the levels
us
On 9/19/10, Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
> The key point being that a fixed oscillator will have *much* better close in
> phase noise than your typical synthesized radio.
yes, I agree fully, in facts getting rid of the typical syntesized
radio is my final goal :-)
First step is the converter, second
Hi
The key point being that a fixed oscillator will have *much* better close in
phase noise than your typical synthesized radio.
Bob
On Sep 19, 2010, at 12:41 PM, francesco messineo wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> sine oscillators like the AXLE184 series (which is one of my candidate
> solutions so far
I would like to take advantage of this group's worldwide constituency and
ask a slightly off-topic question about the contact numbering scheme for
Russian PC-series circular connectors. I am trying to trace out the wiring
of a Russian manufactured radiometer with these connectors. Surprisi
Hi Bob,
sine oscillators like the AXLE184 series (which is one of my candidate
solutions so far) has around -110 dBc/h...@100 Hz offset and -160 dBc/Hz
at 100 KHz.
In the application I'm talking about, the use of 500 - 250 Hz crystal
filters at the IF is normal practice.
Best regards
Frank
On 9/
Hi Mike,
as I said, current plans are for a few frequencies in the 20-50 MHz
range. The current project needs 20, 22 and 42 MHz oscillators.
Best regards
Frank
On 9/19/10, Mike Feher wrote:
> Frank -
>
> Did you ever mention at what center frequency you would like to achieve the
> PN at your st
Hi
If it's a "reasonably priced" synthesized radio, -90 is probably better than
anything you will find on VHF at 100 Hz offset. A lot of stuff out there is
closer to -60 than it is to -100. 100 Hz doesn't mess up the adjacent channel
rejection, so they don't worry a lot about it.
Bob
On Se
Frank -
Did you ever mention at what center frequency you would like to achieve the
PN at your stated offset? Regards - Mike
Mike B. Feher, N4FS
89 Arnold Blvd.
Howell, NJ, 07731
732-886-5960
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Beh
On 9/19/10, Magnus Danielson wrote:
> Frank,
>
> On 09/19/2010 09:35 AM, francesco messineo wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> On 9/19/10, Bob Camp wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Is -195 dbc/Hz floor good enough or is it overkill?
>>
>> I'd say this is obviously overkill, -160 dBc/Hz could be a good
>> compromise.
>>
>>>
Frank,
On 09/19/2010 09:35 AM, francesco messineo wrote:
Hi
On 9/19/10, Bob Camp wrote:
Hi
Is -195 dbc/Hz floor good enough or is it overkill?
I'd say this is obviously overkill, -160 dBc/Hz could be a good compromise.
Is -155 dbc/Hz at 100 Hz offset a requirement or is -40 dbc ok?
-4
Hi
Ok, you have just ruled out all of the silicon oscillators and by similarity
ruled out a DDS. That narrows things down quite a bit.
You will indeed need to shop around for low noise VHF crystals. Since you are
in Europe, talking to KVG probably is your best bet.
Bob
On Sep 19, 2010, at 3
Hi,
In many military Russian locator and other eqmnt, also from the east block
microwave units/chain used the shoulder screw to have perfect alignment between
wave guides...
I was the same with the Czech Republic radars too.
I have been operated many above mentioned units.
Rgds Er
Robert is obviously correct, however you would be very hard pressed to be able
to measure the difference between shoulder screws and regular screws in
practice, either through insertion loss, VSWR or power handling.
So much so that I have never seen shoulder screws used on rectangular
waveguide
Ciao Francesco
The German commentary doesnt add much, but at least the circuit
annotations are in English.
The QBH125 (http://www.spectrummicrowave.com/pdf/amplifier/QBH-125.pdf)
used by one of the circuits is available on eBay and elsewhere (Spectrum
microwave).
You may be able to substitute
The shoulder screw is an interesting idea, but I've seen (and taken apart)
lots and lots of waveguide over the decades, including brand new stuff
from major manufacturers and mil contractors. I've never seen a shoulder
screw used.
FWIW,
-John
=
> Hi,
> Not strictly true. Mate
Hi Bruce,
On 9/18/10, Bruce Griffiths wrote:
> Another reference on VHF crystal oscillator circuits (if you can read
> German) is:
> http://www.axtal.com/data/buch/Kap6.pdf
> In particular Figures 6.20 and 6.21 on page 23.
unfortunately I don't read german, but it seem I understand those
circui
At 13:50 -0600 18-09-2010, Pete Rawson wrote:
This is true, but the Si570 is better than the vast majority of canned
oscillators, including many TCXOs.
While computer-grade canned oscillators do indeed have less than
ideal phase noise characteristics, several easily available
oscillator modul
Hi,
Not strictly true. Material is not important apart from environmental
(corrosion) issues, but that is not the only concern. WG-16 (British) / WR 90
flanges are not dowelled. They rely on the fastners for alignment. The correct
fastners are 5/32" shoulder screws (0.1557" dia 6-32 thread). The
Hi
On 9/19/10, Bob Camp wrote:
> Hi
>
> Is -195 dbc/Hz floor good enough or is it overkill?
I'd say this is obviously overkill, -160 dBc/Hz could be a good compromise.
>
> Is -155 dbc/Hz at 100 Hz offset a requirement or is -40 dbc ok?
-40 dBc/Hz at 100 Hz is about useless, -150 dBc/Hz at 100
38 matches
Mail list logo
